You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The theory that explains everything and anything! Pt.1/3
The problem is that his theory has never been peer-reviewed (it was published instead in pay-to-play journals). Moreover, physicists who read his work found out that it was without any foundation and self-referential.
This is enough to me so that I won't spend a minute on his work...
You're right. As his work hasn't been peer reviewed, it hasn't gained much steem. However, more and more physicists are now taking aspects of his theory and elaborating on them in different ways. Nassim takes more of a spiritual approach and lacks evidence with this theory and I feel ultimately that's what had other physicists skeptical.
Not to my knowledge... Honestly, no one cares :)
I would be quite interested to hear a legitimate reply to this topic - rather than baseless insults and appeals to dubious authority.
His theories are quite compelling and I have not seen any credible scientific rebuttal on them to date. I don’t have the credentials to make a claim one way or the other, nonetheless it seems rather dubious to ignore the actual meat of the argument (the mathematics) and continue on with these character assassinations.
As for other physicists, check out Brian Cox or Elizabeth Rauscher.
I didn't insult anyone. I only said that physicists are mostly not discussing that at all. This is a fact. You can check the programs of the key conferences and workshops on particle physics. His theories are not even mentioned. If this is not a legitimate answer, please tell me what it is...
His theories have not been peer-reviewed, that is already one thing. Either he has tried to have them published in renowned journals and failed (that is a bad sign), or he didn't even try (that is a bad sign too).
From what I have heard (from people I trust), his proofs are not proofs. The "proofs" (with quotes) are circular. In other words, they are no proofs at all, and without foundation. This is not what science is (i.e. the scientific method is).
Check them for what. This is not the topic...